SLOPE: A MATLAB Revival

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
S3/S4 BBH report Thomas Cokelaer LSC Meeting, Boston, 3-4 June 2006.
Advertisements

AURIGA-LIGO Activity F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara for the LIGO-AURIGA JWG 2nd ILIAS-GW Meeting, October 24th and 25th, Palma de Mallorca,
Initial results of burst signal injections into a GEO burst search pipeline Indentify clusters of TF pixels Frame data from IFO Calculate time- frequency.
LIGO-G Z Update on the Analysis of S2 Burst Hardware Injections L. Cadonati (MIT), A. Weinstein (CIT) for the Burst group Hannover LSC meeting,
LIGO- G Z August 19, 2004August 2004 LSC Meeting 1 Towards an Astrophysics-Based Burst ETG Tuning Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity.
GWDAW-10 (December 14, 2005, University of Texas at Brownsville, U.S.A.) Data conditioning and veto for TAMA burst analysis Masaki Ando and Koji Ishidoshiro.
Artificial Learning Approaches for Multi-target Tracking Jesse McCrosky Nikki Hu.
Burst detection efficiency  In order to interpret our observed detection rate (upper limit) we need to know our efficiency for detection by the IFO and.
1 Integration of Background Modeling and Object Tracking Yu-Ting Chen, Chu-Song Chen, Yi-Ping Hung IEEE ICME, 2006.
LIGO-G Z Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates Laura Cadonati Massachusetts Institute of Technology LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
Results from TOBAs Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda.
1/25 Current results and future scenarios for gravitational wave’s stochastic background G. Cella – INFN sez. Pisa.
DelayRatio: A Gravitational Wave Event Physical Likelihood Estimator Based on Detection Delays and SNR Ratios Amber L. Stuver LIGO Livingston ObservatoryCalifornia.
LIGO- G Z August 19, 2004Penn State University 1 Extracting Signals via Blind Deconvolution Tiffany Summerscales Penn State University.
LIGO- G Z 03/23/2005LSC Meeting March BlockNormal Near-Online S4 Burst Analysis Keith Thorne Penn State University Relativity Group (Shantanu.
Adapting matched filtering searches for compact binary inspirals in LSC detector data. Chad Hanna – For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
LIGO-G M GWDAW, December LIGO Burst Search Analysis Laura Cadonati, Erik Katsavounidis LIGO-MIT.
M. Principe, GWDAW-10, 16th December 2005, Brownsville, Texas Modeling the Performance of Networks of Gravitational-Wave Detectors in Bursts Search Maria.
Abstract: We completed the tuning of the analysis procedures of the AURIGA-LIGO joint burst search and we are in the process of verifying our results.
ILIAS WP1 – Cascina IGEC – First experience using the data of 5 bar detectors: ALLEGRO, AURIGA, EXPLORER NAUTILUS and NIOBE. – 1460.
LIGO- G Z Beyond the PSD: Discovering hidden nonlinearity Tiffany Summerscales Penn State University.
18/01/01GEO data analysis meeting, Golm Issues in GW bursts Detection Soumya D. Mohanty AEI Outline of the talk Transient Tests (Transient=Burst) Establishing.
LIGO- G D Burst Search Report Stan Whitcomb LIGO Caltech LSC Meeting LIGO1 Plenary Session 18 August 2003 Hannover.
Searching for Gravitational Waves from Binary Inspirals with LIGO Duncan Brown University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration.
S.Klimenko, August 2003, Hannover LIGO-G Z How optimal are wavelet TF methods? S.Klimenko l Introduction l Time-Frequency analysis l Comparison.
LIGO- G D Experimental Upper Limit from LIGO on the Gravitational Waves from GRB Stan Whitcomb For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Informal.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
Visual Tracking by Cluster Analysis Arthur Pece Department of Computer Science University of Copenhagen
S.Klimenko, LSC, August 2004, G Z BurstMon S.Klimenko, A.Sazonov University of Florida l motivation & documentation l description & results l.
S.Klimenko, G Z, March 20, 2006, LSC meeting First results from the likelihood pipeline S.Klimenko (UF), I.Yakushin (LLO), A.Mercer (UF),G.Mitselmakher.
LIGO-G Z h  AS_Q Filtering in the Time Domain Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech for the Penn State PSURG Group.
LIGO-G Z Confidence Test for Waveform Consistency of LIGO Burst Candidate Events Laura Cadonati LIGO Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Data Analysis Algorithm for GRB triggered Burst Search Soumya D. Mohanty Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville On.
S.Klimenko, March 2003, LSC Burst Analysis in Wavelet Domain for multiple interferometers LIGO-G Z Sergey Klimenko University of Florida l Analysis.
LIGO-G Z GWDAW9 December 17, Search for Gravitational Wave Bursts in LIGO Science Run 2 Data John G. Zweizig LIGO / Caltech for the LIGO.
Search for bursts with the Frequency Domain Adaptive Filter (FDAF ) Sabrina D’Antonio Roma II Tor Vergata Sergio Frasca, Pia Astone Roma 1 Outlines: FDAF.
LIGO-G Z 17 August ETG Sensitivity and Efficiency to Simulations: BlockNormal and SLOPE Amber L. Stuver Penn State University.
A Comparison of Burst Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms for LIGO Amber L. Stuver Center for Gravitational Wave Physics Penn State University.
LIGO-G All-Sky Burst Search in the First Year of the LSC S5 Run Laura Cadonati, UMass Amherst For the LIGO Scientific Collaboration GWDAW Meeting,
LIGO-G Z r statistics for time-domain cross correlation on burst candidate events Laura Cadonati LIGO-MIT LSC collaboration meeting, LLO march.
Comparison of filters for burst detection M.-A. Bizouard on behalf of the LAL-Orsay group GWDAW 7 th IIAS-Kyoto 2002/12/19.
LIGO-G Z TFClusters Tuning for the LIGO-TAMA Search Patrick Sutton LIGO-Caltech.
Validation of realistically simulated non-stationary data. Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave Astronomy University of Texas at Brownsville. GWDAW9,
S5 First Epoch BNS Inspiral Results Drew Keppel 1 representing the Inspiral Group 1 California Institute of Technology Nov LSC Meeting MIT, 4 November.
LIGO-G9900XX-00-M DMT Monitor Verification with Simulated Data John Zweizig LIGO/Caltech.
Status of the LIGO-AURIGA Joint Burst Analysis F. Salemi Italy, INFN and University of Ferrara on behalf of the AURIGA Collaboration and the LIGO Scientific.
GWDAW11 – Potsdam Results by the IGEC2 collaboration on 2005 data Gabriele Vedovato for the IGEC2 collaboration.
Soma Mukherjee LSC, Hanford, Aug.19 '04 Generation of realistic data segments: production and application. Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave.
Igor Yakushin, December 2004, GWDAW-9 LIGO-G Z Status of the untriggered burst search in S3 LIGO data Igor Yakushin (LIGO Livingston Observatory)
LIGO- G Z 11/13/2003LIGO Scientific Collaboration 1 BlockNormal Performance Studies John McNabb & Keith Thorne, for the Penn State University.
LIGO-G Z Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Bursts Search Patrick Sutton LIGO Laboratory, Caltech, for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Working Group.
The first AURIGA-TAMA joint analysis proposal BAGGIO Lucio ICRR, University of Tokyo A Memorandum of Understanding between the AURIGA experiment and the.
SEARCH FOR INSPIRALING BINARIES S. V. Dhurandhar IUCAA Pune, India.
Abstract: We completed the tuning of the analysis procedures of the AURIGA-LIGO joint burst search and we are in the process of verifying our results.
LIGO-G Z The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO Shourov K. Chatterji for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration APS Meeting.
CS 591 S1 – Computational Audio -- Spring, 2017
A 2 veto for Continuous Wave Searches
The Q Pipeline search for gravitational-wave bursts with LIGO
Soma Mukherjee Centre for Gravitational Wave Astronomy
Signal processing.
r-statistic performance in S2
LIGO Scientific Collaboration meeting
Design of Digital Filter Bank and General Purpose Digital Shaper
Results from TOBAs Cross correlation analysis to search for a Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background University of Tokyo Ayaka Shoda M. Ando, K. Okada,
Maria Principe University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy
Coherent Coincident Analysis of LIGO Burst Candidates
Status of the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analyses
A Waveform Consistency Test for Binary Inspirals using LIGO data
Status and Plans for the LIGO-TAMA Joint Data Analysis
Performance of the WaveBurst algorithm on LIGO S2 playground data
Presentation transcript:

SLOPE: A MATLAB Revival Amber L. Stuver stuver@gravity.psu.edu

Outline Introduction How Does it Work? Results Future Work Description Trigger Generation & Clustering Results Data Conditioning False rates Efficiency and false alarms Future Work 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Introduction SLOPE: Motivation: is a simple algorithm is not very computationally expensive was previously applied to S1 analysis issues with background rate excluded it from upper limit estimation time domain algorithm Motivation: - Burst S1 paper 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Description SLOPE is a linear filter that returns the best fit slope to data The data is windowed according to the expected timescale of a burst signal This sliding window is moved through the data An event will typically cause a cascade of triggers These triggers are clustered together to form the candidate event 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Trigger Generation SLOPE previously did not apply an adaptive threshold This fixed threshold was attributed to the background estimation problems in S1 SLOPE now applies a threshold based on the idealized white noise probability that a slope that passes threshold is not accidental This probability threshold relates directly to the expected false rate for white noise 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Trigger Clustering If two triggers are separated by less than the width of the window, the two triggers are considered part of the same event These clusters are returned as candidate events The data used in this illustration is Gaussian noise with zero mean and unit variance. 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Data Conditioning Since SLOPE is a time domain ETG, data conditioning is necessary uses the same data conditioning as BlockNormal The data is down sampled and Kalman filtered to remove narrow line features base banded regressed to remove power lines and calibration lines whitened Results presented here are in the band between 512 to 640 Hz This band is the cleanest before data conditioning. 19 August 2004 Penn State University

False Rates S2 playground false rates track the ideal white noise rate Departures from the ideal false rate indicate non-stationarities False rates can be improved with applying SLOPE to stationary epochs 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Efficiencies GravEn was used to simulate sine-Gaussians at 153 Hz, Q=10 Simulations were injected at an average rate of 1 Hz Criteria for detection: trigger cluster must overlap with the time of maximum amplitude of simulated signal Efficiency: False Alarm: 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Efficiency vs. False Alarm The average peek amplitude of simulation was on the order of 10-20. 19 August 2004 Penn State University

Future Work SLOPE is to be included in my thesis investigation on the efficacies of the different burst ETG’s for different waveform properties Break data up into stationary epochs to further improve false rate and efficiency Investigate: effects of window size on efficiency different clustering criteria (i.e. different minimum distance between triggers) Suggestions welcome! 19 August 2004 Penn State University